GOD is still SUPREME! The Earth was created by GOD, not men and his science! Science and technology is great in the natural world but it can not touch GOD! Nor replace Him! Man (you) (man or woman) is finite! GOD is beyond the infinite! And obviously smarter, wiser, and just knows far more then the collective minds of all men past, present and future! Knows far more then all 'principalities' UFO's (none exist) any thing imagined, GOD is supreme! and : Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! GOD BLESS AMERICA! You can't say: Primordial-Slime bless America!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nor: Science bless America!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nor: Man bless America!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or: UFO's bless America!?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! NO! BUT GOD is the only one that can BLESS AMERICA! So GOD BLESS America! And save it (US) from weirdos on this forum!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! GOD BLESS TONY 1, AND DEADWOOD! And others that love science and believe in GOD who created all that is observed and unobservable!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! AMEN!
So, Loone, which is it? Sir Loone A direct question, sir: Which is it, religion or thought? You have reinforced the dichotomy 'twixt the two, but have you any comment other than to validate the topic post, or would you like to go on demonstrating your need for external blessings to validate your own self? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tony, Glad to be of service, as always. You must've went to a Sunday school instead of a real school. Geological formations have <u>never</u> been dated primarily through their fossil content. Totally the opposite, it is the fossils that are dated through their location in a geological formation. I challenge you to produce <u>one</u> actual textbook that advocates dating of geological formations primarily through their fossil content. You have yet to make a dent in the "evolutionary arguments". You never actually learned the arguments, so of course you don't have a clue. No problem, I understand. "Degradation" is your choice of words, not mine. You choose nonsensical terminology, and then you complain that it doesn't make sense. A species' gene pool accumulates transcription and duplication errors. That does not mean it necessarily degrades. In fact, over time it either maintains its fitness or improves. Your original claim (and context): <i> Don't get me wrong, I believe that the charts produced by evolutionists exist, and I believe that hierarchies are drawn on those charts. <b>It's a bit of a stretch to go from that to the actual fossils...</b> </i> Been suffering from selective attention lately? Or is it a chronic condition with you? You're not only a megalomaniac, but apparently also suffering from a multiple personality disorder. Or is it the matter of course for you to refer to yourself as "everyone"? You can buy one at your local electronics store. It's called a "camcorder". Research it, you'll be quite impressed with its capabilities. Which part would you like me to prove? That the Earth is not supported by pillars? Or that the Earth doesn't hang? The certainty of one who has been brainwashed. Keep telling yourself that. The more you repeat it, the stronger you will believe. Try chanting that mantra. You might also try fasting to improve the efficiency of the process. P.S. on a more civil note, you might find the following relevant to our current discussion: http://www.nature.com/nsu/010215/010215-3.html
machaon, Sorry for a belated response, but your post sort of got lost amongst the giant "I know you are, but what am I?" exchanges between Tony and I. I appreciate the conciliatory note you tried to sound. Indeed, I admit: guilty as charged. But what else are you to do when your opponent insists on calling you insane, making false claims right and left about everything from science to public education to the rest of the universe, and offering ludicrously nonsensical arguments that even a five year old would find retarded? I can only assume that he is being an a**hole on purpose (since he is definitely not retarded). The problem isn't so much what he is or how he acts, but that he is so damn loud and plainly just bent on chasing any intelligent people off these boards. Someone has to do something about it. Someone has to put him in his place. So I thought I'd join Tiassa. Except that my approach is a little more direct: I give him back exactly the sort of medicine he dishes out to everyone else. Since reasonable arguments and loving your opponent clearly do not work in this case, the only remaining alternative is to try the eye for an eye strategy. If he can't understand reason, then perhaps he'll understand pain. Note that I don't take the same approach with regard to others (because they aren't begging for it.) So there they are, my excuses. Perhaps if I can't be forgiven, then maybe at least I can be understood. (Sorry! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Re: GOD is still SUPREME! *Originally posted by Sir. Loone GOD BLESS TONY 1* Thanks, I receive that. God bless you, too. *Originally posted by tiassa A direct question, sir: Which is it, religion or thought? * A direct question, sir: Which is it, religion or thought? You have reinforced the dichotomy 'twixt the two, but have you any comment other than to validate the topic post? *Originally posted by Bambi I challenge you to produce one actual textbook that advocates dating of geological formations primarily through their fossil content. * I'm not aware of any that "primarily" do that. *You have yet to make a dent in the "evolutionary arguments". You never actually learned the arguments, so of course you don't have a clue. * Why would I want to learn mounds of crap? As for denting mounds of crap, you have yet to explain how you consider yourself a different species than your grandmother. *"Degradation" is your choice of words, not mine. You choose nonsensical terminology, and then you complain that it doesn't make sense. A species' gene pool accumulates transcription and duplication errors. That does not mean it necessarily degrades. In fact, over time it either maintains its fitness or improves. * Or degrades. Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the term "error?" *Been suffering from selective attention lately? Or is it a chronic condition with you? * OK, let's review. I make a statement as you quoted. In it, I say something is a stretch. You say that that in turn is a stretch. I ask how it is a stretch to make a claim that something else is a stretch. So, your point is...? *You're not only a megalomaniac, but apparently also suffering from a multiple personality disorder. Or is it the matter of course for you to refer to yourself as "everyone"? * LOL! You should review tiassa's post in which he warned you about the same thing, or Cris' post. *You can buy one at your local electronics store. It's called a "camcorder". Research it, you'll be quite impressed with its capabilities. * Mine doesn't record God's voice. *Which part would you like me to prove?* The part where you said: "So the earth hangs. Together with its pillars." SInce you were speaking sarcastically, you meant the opposite, so how about proving that the earth doesn't hang, with or without pillars? *The certainty of one who has been brainwashed. Keep telling yourself that. The more you repeat it, the stronger you will believe. Try chanting that mantra. You might also try fasting to improve the efficiency of the process. * You're saying that scientists have completed the task of demonizing religion? BTW, thanks for the link, but do you think I will believe that 95% of our DNA is junk, as quickly as you, just because I read it on a web page? *bent on chasing any intelligent people off these boards. * What intelligent people? Do you think that quoting your schoolbooks makes you intelligent? *If he can't understand reason, then perhaps he'll understand pain.* You are making it painfully obvious that you are thoroughly brainwashed. I think of some poor little girl(?) sitting in a classroom totally unaware that there is a deliberate campaign in existence to withhold the truth from her. She is carefully taught that every word in her schoolbooks is true and every word in every other book, especially the Bible, is false. I would have thought that someone as intelligent as you are, would stop and ask herself why people say things, and why the people who are saying things are saying those things, and why are they saying them to little children, etc. It's the old newspaper reporter's "who, what, when, where, why, and how." You've gotten to the point of questioning religion, and Christianity in particular. When are you going to question your most cherished beliefs, and more specifically, their source? Try applying the 5 W's and 1 H to your education.
Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! Originally posted by tony1 All right then. How about textbooks that claim fossil content to be a self-sufficient method of dating geological formations? Another question: how about any textbook whatsoever? You are aware of <i>some</i> textbooks, I hope... You know that warm and fuzzy feeling you get from "communing with God"? I imagine it's quite similar to the sensation of being in a mound of crap. Learning tends to open your eyes so that you can actually see what you're sitting in. IMHO, that's as good a reason as any. I don't. You're the one who keeps insisting on it. (hint: you may want to review the definition of "species".) (hint2: I've already done that legwork for you in a previous post. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Less fit individuals are less successful reproductively. Therefore a species' genome either maintains its fitness or improves. Error is not the issue. The implication of the error for fitness is. Thank you. That was the point. God's voice is your own. No problem. To hang means to be suspended. To be suspended means to be supported in such a way that the suspending force counteracts gravity. If the suspending force is removed, the formerly suspended object falls. The Earth, as it happens, falls all the time. It keeps falling towards the Sun, although missing due to its orbital velocity component (kind of like any other satellite.) Which of course breaks the other notion associated with suspension: suspended objects don't fly around at x kilometers per second. Now, shall we move on to the pillars? Yes. Any atheist will tell you so. As for the rest of you, your numbers will continue to dwindle until you are no longer socially significant. It's the web page of Nature magazine. One of the most acclaimed and scientifically rigorous in existence. It's not just some web page. Of course you don't have to believe it. Just like you didn't believe your textbooks. Just like you won't believe it under any sort of condition whatsoever. It's a side effect of being brainwashed. But in case you were ever interested in kicking the habit of ignorance, Nature is definitely one publication I recommend. I don't think that I have quoted a schoolbook yet. Do you think calling everyone else an idiot makes you intelligent? How about quoting your Bible? Paranoia is another side effect of being brainwashed. I don't believe in words. I was never taught anything about the veracity vs. fallacy of any book, especially the Bible. I make my own judgements. Indeed. I keep asking myself such questions every time I think of a poor defenseless little kid being methodically poisoned with religion. Many of them never stand a chance. You mean I should question my lack of religious belief, and more specifically the source of a lack of religious belief? Why should I question a natural state of mind?
Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! *Originally posted by Bambi All right then. How about textbooks that claim fossil content to be a self-sufficient method of dating geological formations? Another question: how about any textbook whatsoever? You are aware of some textbooks, I hope...* While I appreciate the melodramatic progression of your series of questions, thankfully I have managed to delete most of the crap I learned in school. I could see if my old textbooks are still around somewhere, though. In any case, some of the threads on this forum contain a number of quotes from evolutionary "scientists." *You know that warm and fuzzy feeling you get from "communing with God"?* What warm fuzzy feeling? *I imagine it's quite similar to the sensation of being in a mound of crap. Learning tends to open your eyes so that you can actually see what you're sitting in.* Well, I concede your expertise in sitting in mounds of crap. I also concede that you have learned that you are, in fact, sitting in mounds of crap. That's two for you. *I don't. You're the one who keeps insisting on it. * You are missing the point. In a freeform, subjective "science" such as evolution, a person such as myself can become a freelance taxonomist and I can arbitrarily define you as a different species from your grandmother, with just as much "science" backing me up as you have backing you up, i.e. none. Even though evolutionists claim that there are different species in the same way as creationists do, the fact is that in the evolutionary scheme, we are just one great big happy species or we are all different species. It makes no difference. *Less fit individuals are less successful reproductively. Therefore a species' genome either maintains its fitness or improves.* Or fails and goes extinct. *God's voice is your own.* Perhaps you are so used to one-sided conversations where yours is the only voice for miles around, but real conversations don't work that way. *No problem. To hang means to be suspended. To be suspended means to be supported in such a way that the suspending force counteracts gravity. If the suspending force is removed, the formerly suspended object falls.* I thought you might say that. ---To remain suspended or poised over a place or an object; hover: rain clouds hanging low over the corn fields. --- American Heritage Dict. I've noticed how clouds fall to the ground with a thud when the rope holding them breaks. *The Earth, as it happens, falls all the time. It keeps falling towards the Sun, although missing due to its orbital velocity component (kind of like any other satellite.)* Yet, somehow mysteriously, it remains hanging in space. While your description coincides with that given to orbiting satellites, they too remain suspended in space. *Which of course breaks the other notion associated with suspension: suspended objects don't fly around at x kilometers per second.* You need to get out more. You haven't been to a carnival in a while. *Now, shall we move on to the pillars?* Yes, let's. You did such a great job making hash of the "hang" thing, that I can only wait to see what you will do with the pillars. *Yes. Any atheist will tell you so.* So you're saying that the following has now been successfully demonized and butter can no longer be churned from milk and blood no longer comes from twisting a person's nose? Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife. (Proverbs 30:33, KJV). *It's the web page of Nature magazine. One of the most acclaimed and scientifically rigorous in existence. It's not just some web page.* It is just some web page, if it fails to explain why such "junk" DNA is there. Besides, what do you think "most acclaimed" and "scientifically rigorous" actually mean to me? They sound like great plaudits when you use them, but I'd be asking, "acclaimed by whom?" and "what in hell is scientific rigor when a 'science' such as evolutionary psychology exists?" *Of course you don't have to believe it. Just like you didn't believe your textbooks.* Aside from the fact that I did believe my textbooks at the time, the labeling of something as junk does not make it so. The fact is that 5 billion years isn't enough time to go from zero base pairs to 3 million even if 99.999% is junk. *But in case you were ever interested in kicking the habit of ignorance, Nature is definitely one publication I recommend.* You would. Nature was one publication I read a lot of, until I decided to actually kick the habit of ignorance. Many atheists think that what they have is great wisdom and intelligence, because they have Nature. Surely, even you can see that wisdom and intelligence wasn't something that appeared on the scene around the time that Nature and its ilk first were published. *I don't think that I have quoted a schoolbook yet.* While you probably haven't done a word-for-word exact quote of any particualr book, you have done a lot of paraphrasing. Do you think that reading several books and drawing a synopsis somehow constitutes "real" knowledge? *Do you think calling everyone else an idiot makes you intelligent? How about quoting your Bible?* No, and yes. *Paranoia is another side effect of being brainwashed.* That would explain your paranoid "inquisitor" comment from only a short while ago. As for a possible connection between what I said and your reference to paranoia, you work as hard as you can to withhold the Bible from people. I suspect that were it to come to a vote, you would vote for Bibles to be banned from schools. *I don't believe in words.* Well, you should since they are those blobs on the screen in front of you that consist of series of letters, and appear to contain some form of meaning. *I was never taught anything about the veracity vs. fallacy of any book, especially the Bible. I make my own judgements.* Sure you do. You mean that your teachers didn't use books in the schools you attended? *Indeed. I keep asking myself such questions every time I think of a poor defenseless little kid being methodically poisoned with religion. Many of them never stand a chance.* Yet so few attend church. What about the millions who are forced to attend public school, at essentially gun-point, to be taught pure crap? What is it in those schools that has to be force-fed to children under threat of violence? *You mean I should question my lack of religious belief, and more specifically the source of a lack of religious belief? Why should I question a natural state of mind? * I thought you might drift off in that direction. Those "natural" states of mind are specifically the ones to question because they seem so right. Your natural state of mind is your religion, so there is no such thing as "lack of religious belief." Besides, your "natural" state of mind might be exactly the same as the "natural" state of a ship grounded on a rocky reef in a storm. The question is, how did you drift into that "natural" state? You seem unfamiliar with the concept of directed thought, so you would be completely unfamiliar with the concept of directed meta-thought. Thus, your "natural" state of mind may be just as natural as a rotting stump or a stagnant swamp.
Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! Originally posted by tony1 I figured as much. You are "arguing" from ignorance. You should just state it more clearly and more often so that it doesn't confuse anyone who might suppose that you actually know something. You still haven't checked the definition of "species". It is a definition, and it has not changed with time (to my knowledge.) Check it out. No, species do not fail and go extinct because of genetic drift. They fail or go extinct either due to natural catastrophies or to stiff competition from other species. Yes, you should keep that in mind. So far, you haven't had a single real conversation on this forum. Though you've made a lot of proud demonstrations of stubborn ignorance and spite. The "thud" is generated by raindrops. No mystery at all. It's called orbital dynamics. Goes back all the way to Newton. If you were to slow the Earth down a little, its orbit would change to be ever more elliptical. If you sufficiently slowed it, it would plunge straight into the sun. But thankfully, it is traveling much too fast for that. Of course, traveling very fast doesn't equal being suspended in my book. Yes, what about carnivals? As far as I know, at carnivals suspension and motion are still two separate notions. Glad to oblige. Show me a "pillar of the Earth" on which the world resides. That's not religion. In fact, that's science. Actually, it does explain. You should in fact read it. Creationism also claims to be a "science". Claiming so doesn't make it so. Besides, some evolutionary psychologists are indeed valid scientists if they are examining the evolution of brain structures or of the brain's tangible interactions with the environment. It's labelled as junk for a reason. The reason being that cellular machinery cannot and does not utilize it. We've been over that already, and agreed that the size of the genome is not a problem. I find that hard to believe, given your current lack of knowledge. Of course, maybe you just looked at the pretty pictures. Traditionally, wisdom and intelligence were passed down either in written form or from an elder to a student. Modern scientific press is an extension of that ancient process. That you, of all people, should be asking the question. You seem convinced that reading a single book dating back thousands of years and drawing a synopsis somehow constitues "real" knowledge. On the other hand, my knowledge actually gives me demonstrably usable insight. That wasn't paranoid; it was sarcastic. Sorry for not making it more obvious. Far be it from me to withold a cultural artifact from people. I only work hard to tell them what the artifact actually means -- and what it doesn't. Yes but I don't remember them saying, "Look kids, here's a book. Everything written in it is absolutely true, and everything not written in it is absolutely false." That sounds more like what you are proclaiming with respect to the Bible. Most parents threaten violence to their kids only when kids do something harmful either to themselves or to others. Not attending school is harmful to a person. It makes them unable to compete in the workplace, and relegates them to a life of low-paying menial labor or worse, unemployment and homelessness. Hardly. Religion implies: 1) stipulation of meddling superbeings 2) life after death 3) magic 4) worship of and submission to a supernatural authority or authorities I don't harbor any such beliefs or engage in any such behaviors. I was born with it. As were you. As is every human ever born. Yes, please explain to me the concepts of "directed thought" and "directed meta-thought". Or it may be the only non-deluded one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! *Originally posted by Bambi I figured as much. You are "arguing" from ignorance.* You didn't "figure" anything. You're still enamored of your schoolbooks even though it would be trivially easy to show how full of obvious errors they are. *You still haven't checked the definition of "species". It is a definition, and it has not changed with time (to my knowledge.) Check it out.* ---species \Spe"cies\, n. sing. & pl. [L., a sight, outward appearance, shape, form, a particular sort, kind, or quality, a species. See Spice, n., and cf. Specie, Special.] 1. Visible or sensible presentation; appearance; a sensible percept received by the imagination; an image.--- OK, I'd be choosing to "taxonomize" you and your grandmother into different species based on the very first definition offered there, i.e. based on the fact that you look different, plus the fact that your genes look different, too. *No, species do not fail and go extinct because of genetic drift. They fail or go extinct either due to natural catastrophies or to stiff competition from other species.* You're overlooking the obvious. The genes may be drifting one way, while the impending catastrophe would require genes to have drifted another way. *So far, you haven't had a single real conversation on this forum.* OK, let's see. I haven't had any real conversations on this forum, but I'm conversing with you. That would mean that you are at least 50% responsible for at least the conversations with you. That would mean that you aren't having real conversations, either. *The "thud" is generated by raindrops.* Oddly, the clouds remain in the sly. *No mystery at all. It's called orbital dynamics. ... Of course, traveling very fast doesn't equal being suspended in my book.* Yet, the earth still remains hanging in space. *Yes, what about carnivals? As far as I know, at carnivals suspension and motion are still two separate notions.* Yes, they are. But you were saying that "suspended objects don't fly around at x kilometers per second." Well, they do at carnivals. *Show me a "pillar of the Earth" on which the world resides.* Hey now! That is asking me to do your work for you. You were going to demolish the theory of the pillars all by yourself. *That's not religion. In fact, that's science.* So, science has failed to demonize that particular part of religion. *Actually, it does explain. You should in fact read it.* I wasn't really asking for a plausible explanation. *Creationism also claims to be a "science". Claiming so doesn't make it so.* Well, I don't claim that creationism is science. Creationism is truth, not science. Remember the definition for "plausible," in connection with the word "theory," "deceptive appearance of truth?" Well, that is why creationism isn't science. It is truth rather than the deceptive appearance of truth. *Besides, some evolutionary psychologists are indeed valid scientists if they are examining the evolution of brain structures or of the brain's tangible interactions with the environment.* They aren't doing that. They are speculating fantasy. *It's labelled as junk for a reason. The reason being that cellular machinery cannot and does not utilize it.* On your say-so, anyway. *We've been over that already, and agreed that the size of the genome is not a problem.* We've been over that, yes. We agreed that genome size is not a problem, yes. You still haven't explained how our genetic material went from zero to 3 billion base pairs at an average rate of a new base pair every 18 months or so. *I find that hard to believe, given your current lack of knowledge. Of course, maybe you just looked at the pretty pictures.* It could be that was what you were doing since you are so enamored of it. *Traditionally, wisdom and intelligence were passed down either in written form or from an elder to a student. Modern scientific press is an extension of that ancient process.* Let's see. The Bible was handed down like that, but it is neither wise nor intelligent in your book. So, if the modern scientific press is an extension of that, it too is neither wise nor intelligent. Oddly enough, I agree with that second conclusion. *That you, of all people, should be asking the question. You seem convinced that reading a single book dating back thousands of years and drawing a synopsis somehow constitues "real" knowledge.* Strangely enough, that one book has survived all these years. My science textbooks weren't current at the time I was supposed to be "learning" from them. For you to assume that the books you have been reading are giving you the correct information, you would have to know all information already, and those books would have to agree with what you know. That begs the question, "Why would you be reading them?" Therefore, the knowledge you consider "real" is not known to you to be real, yet you are claiming it is. *On the other hand, my knowledge actually gives me demonstrably usable insight.* Not based on the fact that you have no way of knowing whether it is real or not. Basically, you are drifting thru life not knowing anything but thinking that you do. *That wasn't paranoid; it was sarcastic. Sorry for not making it more obvious.* It was obvious, You are, in fact, quite transparent. It was paranoid in the sense that you could have chosen any number of ways to be sarcastic, but you chose what is probably the most paranoid way. *Far be it from me to withold a cultural artifact from people. I only work hard to tell them what the artifact actually means -- and what it doesn't.* Of course, you know neither what it means, nor what it does not mean, so what would you be telling people? *Yes but I don't remember them saying, "Look kids, here's a book. Everything written in it is absolutely true, and everything not written in it is absolutely false."* Of course not. Bad propaganda would be like that. Good propaganda carefully conditions a person into certain thought patterns which are not discussed, therefore not discussable. It worked incredibly well on you, since you now hold the belief that there is one book in the world which is not to be believed at any cost. In fact, it has never even occurred to you to investigate that belief, nor the way you came to hold that belief. *Most parents threaten violence to their kids only when kids do something harmful either to themselves or to others. Not attending school is harmful to a person. It makes them unable to compete in the workplace, and relegates them to a life of low-paying menial labor or worse, unemployment and homelessness.* Of course, it is the police who wear guns who will enforce truancy laws. Those guns are not for show. *Hardly. Religion implies: 1) stipulation of meddling superbeings 2) life after death 3) magic 4) worship of and submission to a supernatural authority or authorities* Except for number 3, not bad. And atheism is all those things, except followed by "not." IOW, atheists believe all those things, except opposite. *I was born with it. As were you. As is every human ever born.* We were also born crapping at random I've changed since then, but apparently, you haven't. *Yes, please explain to me the concepts of "directed thought" and "directed meta-thought".* Directed thought can be considered thought with intent, IOW you think with a purpose in mind. Undirected thought is what most people do, "naturally." Thoughts essentially formulate themselves, much the same way as the stomach generates gas by itself. Place a book in front of you and if you read it, your thoughts go where the author decides rather than where you decide. Place you in a group, and you think pretty much what the group thinks. If you don't agree with the group due to some unspecified difference, you change groups. Directed meta-thought, while somewhat paradoxical (how can you think about how you think without using the thought you are thinking about?), is simply the way you direct your thoughts. You, for example, simply cogitate, and then write down the results. I think about how I think and how you think and then write down what directs both my thoughts and your thoughts in the appropriate direction. You automatically deny the existence of God. I think about God, and why one should or should not, and why one would use the word "should," why one would or would not, and why one would use the word "would" and so on. *Or it may be the only non-deluded one. * The probabilities lean heavily toward your being one of the deluded ones, being as you say, in your "natural" state.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! Originally posted by tony1 You mean even easier than to show how full of obvious errors the creationist accounts are? Well then, why don't you? I remember asking you to a few pages back, and you still haven't managed to do it. I see your problem. You aren't using the appropriate definition of species, given the context. I know, following the context is so incredibly hard. Just makes me wonder how you managed to get anything out of those thousands of books you claim to have read. What's there to overlook? The species that can't cope with the catastrophy go extinct. That's pretty much the point, ain't it? You're correct. It's more like pointless bickering. But I adjusted to your level, so the ball is in your court. If only traveling very fast weren't the very thing that keeps the earth "hanging"... But they aren't suspended just because they fly. In fact, their "suspension" keeps them from flying off and crashing to the ground. It's really quite simple. When one claims there is such and such an object, then to disprove the claim all we have to do is look and see if the object is indeed there. So -- show me the pillars. What a masterfully meaningless statement. Yes, science does not demonize itself. Gotcha. You were asking for a nonsensical and/or paradoxical explanation. Lovely. Of course, you will reason that it is truth because it's in the Bible. The Bible, of course, is truth because that's in the Bible too. Most insightful. You see, it's at once not a problem and a problem. Apparently, you want me to repeat myself. Granted, the Bible does that a lot, so I understand your need. Repeating: the modern size of genome is due to duplication errors. Very large numbers can be achieved very quickly via repeated duplication. Enamoured is a word better reserved for religionists. But I do respect it. And it's not the only one I read. Correction: the Bible was wisdom of the day in my book. Some of it contained valuable insights, and yet in retrospect much of it was religious crap. Certain mesopotamian clay tablets have survived even longer. That could definitely be your problem. But aren't you the one who always admonishes not to throw the baby out with the bathwater? That knowledge has allowed engineers to create and achieve everything that we enjoy and take for granted these days. Real enough for me. It's real enough to be applicable. That's far more than can be said about much of the "wisdom" in the Bible. It's not just the book I don't believe. It's the whole religion. But not just your religion. At the root, I don't buy the very notion of any sort of religion as something positive or worthwhile. Delusion is delusion. Until and unless demonstrated otherwise. But we don't just do this with religion. We apply the same litmus test to all beliefs. Some things are better left unchanged. I, for example, value my sanity. You obviously don't value yours. Sounds like normal everyday thought process to me. In my lexicon, "directed thought" is equivalent to paying attention (the opposite: being in a scattered state.) IOW, focused thought about thought. Ok. I can only conclude that you aren't very good at thinking about thought. Otherwise, you'd be a little more objective and impartial. When I think about God I think about why one should or should not contemplate religion at all, Christianity in particular, and finally the Christian concept of God. Of course, the question of whether I should engage in any sort of religious contemplation at all is much more important to me than the question of a particular religion (since answering it in the negative pretty much obviates questioning a particular religion.) You see the world trough a Christian filter. I see the world. And that's all there is to your variety of meta-thought. Delusion as in false belief. Refusing to entertain a belief that cannot be demonstrated as true is a pretty safe way to avoid delusion.
Gravity? I thought I'd poke my head back into this debate for just a moment: I think Tony1's protestations have at least settled the notion of whether religion is independent of thought. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! *Originally posted by Bambi You mean even easier than to show how full of obvious errors the creationist accounts are? Well then, why don't you?* Much, much easier. I don't because, I saw back then how full of crap they were. Recycling old crap isn't what I like to do, that's your specialty what with being an evolutionist. *I see your problem. You aren't using the appropriate definition of species, given the context.* Another version of the "true" scotsman argument. You're good at that! Well, it IS a species, but just not a "true" species. Riiiight. *What's there to overlook? The species that can't cope with the catastrophy go extinct. That's pretty much the point, ain't it?* I thought your point was that they didn't go extinct because of genetic drift? *If only traveling very fast weren't the very thing that keeps the earth "hanging"...* Ah, so you're back to yet another version of the "true" scotsman. It IS hanging, but just not "truly" hanging. *But they aren't suspended just because they fly. In fact, their "suspension" keeps them from flying off and crashing to the ground.* Whaaa? I guess you may be right, they are suspended because being suspended just looks so darn cool. The fact that they fly is only incidental in the large context of the carnival. *When one claims there is such and such an object, then to disprove the claim all we have to do is look and see if the object is indeed there. So -- show me the pillars.* There is that teeny flaw in your argument. Do you have a brain? *What a masterfully meaningless statement. Yes, science does not demonize itself.* You're setting records for the most "true" scotsman arguments in a single post. The verse I quoted is from the Bible, making it a religious thing, but just not a "true" religious thing. *Gotcha. You were asking for a nonsensical and/or paradoxical explanation.* Got me what? I was expecting a nonsensical and/or paradoxical explanation. I was hoping for a sane one. *Lovely. Of course, you will reason that it is truth because it's in the Bible. The Bible, of course, is truth because that's in the Bible too. Most insightful.* Still miles better than what you're offering. You reason that science is (place adjective here) because it doesn't have all the answers. You argue that evolution is true because of science, which is still working on the answers. Your fellow atheists argue that they, and you, don't know anything at all. Your best approach to truth is to ask, "what is truth?" Veeeerrrrry insightful, indeed. *Apparently, you want me to repeat myself.* I would like it explained just once. *Repeating: the modern size of genome is due to duplication errors. Very large numbers can be achieved very quickly via repeated duplication.* Repeating: that's not a valid answer. Duplicating does not equal increasing. You are just hoping I will fall for the old "it's incomprehensible" argument. Biilions of years are, oh, so incomprehensible. Very quickly is, oh, so incomprehensible. Very large numbers are, oh, so incomprehensible. You probably think that because you said so, I will actually believe that cells are like little PCR machines cranking out huge quantities of DNA, magically creating 3 billion base pairs where there were none before. Well, cells aren't like that; they duplicate DNA more or less identically to what was there already. If very large numbers could be achieved very quickly then bacteria would have demonstrated such a process a long time ago. Oops, that just plays into your "incomprehensibility" argument. Let's say that bacteria would be demonstrating that as we speak, and they aren't. *Enamoured is a word better reserved for religionists. But I do respect it. And it's not the only one I read.* I could have guessed. However, you must think that when you read it, it somehow looks different to you than it does to me. Guess what? It doesn't. It looks just as seemingly valid to me as it does to you. You simply lack the critical thinking it takes to critique what you respect. *Correction: the Bible was wisdom of the day in my book. Some of it contained valuable insights, and yet in retrospect much of it was religious crap.* That is worse. You are now arguing morality by the calendar. Even an atheist is going to find it difficult to justify using a calendar as the basis for morality after rejecting a book which is avowedly considered a basis for morality. *Certain mesopotamian clay tablets have survived even longer.* I wasn't highlighting the literal lifetime of the material the books were printed on. I was attempting to highlight the fact that most of my textbooks were either not current at the time I received them or didn't last to the end of the year. *That could definitely be your problem. But aren't you the one who always admonishes not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?* Yes, but it is crucial to throw out the bathwater. *Real enough for me.* That is the difference between you and me. You only want what is real enough for you, and I want what is real. You will tolerate any falsehood, any scam, any wool over your eyes, in fact, anything at all, as long as it appears real enough to fool you. *We apply the same litmus test to all beliefs.* The atheist mantra. You leave out the last part, "except your own." *Some things are better left unchanged. I, for example, value my sanity.* Equating sanity with crapping at random, is not what I expected from you. *Sounds like normal everyday thought process to me.* It would, except it isn't. Paying attention is undirected thought. The object of your attention determines your thoughts, which means you don't. The opposite is not thinking at all. *IOW, focused thought about thought. Ok.* Well, that would be "directed thought," to you. *I can only conclude that you aren't very good at thinking about thought. Otherwise, you'd be a little more objective and impartial* You are unable to be impartial at all. In fact, you are forced to reject Christianity. Your thoughts about that are merely a rationalization after the fact. *When I think about God I think about why one should or should not contemplate religion at all, Christianity in particular, and finally the Christian concept of God.* In other words, you are completely incapable of objective thought. All of your reasoning is based on assuming your conclusion as your premise. *You see the world trough a Christian filter. I see the world.* It is obvious that your view of the world is rather heavily filtered by assuming your conclusions as your premise. *Delusion as in false belief. Refusing to entertain a belief that cannot be demonstrated as true is a pretty safe way to avoid delusion. * Not if the belief is recognition of God. Refusing to entertain that belief, which cannot be demonstrated as true, is a guaranteed way to delusion. Why? If you insist on objective proof for a subjective matter, you cannot demonstrate the validity of that belief, either. According to your statement, the proper course of action would be to refuse to entertain such a belief. That in turn necessitates abandoning the insistence on objective proof, which is the basis for your world-view. After a few loops of that, you will be/are deluded. It's the reverse variation on Pascal's wager. It is the atheist insisting that he/she is going to bet on the falsehood of all beliefs unless proven true. To make a bet like that, you would have to accept that belief before it has been proven true. Thus, your statement, and all of the reasoning based on it, are fallacious.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! Originally posted by tiassa As well as the notion of whether thought is independent of religion. Originally posted by tony1 That's swell. So, you call both the physical evidence and the theoretical basis of evolution crap even while at the same time refusing to explain yourself. That's somewhere around the level of a preschooler, methinks. Seems like I'll have to stoop yet lower to reach your level: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your mama. Yes, just like you are a moron, but just not a "true" moron. Ahh, the fun we can have with dictionaries... I'll drop you a big fat hint though. Since we were discussing taxonomy (within the context of evolution), you might care to stick to the definition prescribed by taxonomy. I know, that means skipping over all the other possible definitions. Hope that doesn't turn off your bubbling intellect. The point is that many do go extinct. The ones that don't are lucky to have been able to cope. Life (other that intelligent life, obviously) cannot and does not plan ahead for future disasters; evolution is not purposeful. The best life can do is be prepared for the future disasters by the virtue of having survived similar past disasters (and thus whatever couldn't survive isn't around any longer, while whatever did survive is likely to survive again.) It seems in your lingo, "true scotsman" is synonymous with "correctness". Well yes, I would indeed expect you to use the correct terminology as appropriate within the context. Since the Earth is not truly hanging, then either you say that it is hanging metaphorically speaking, or you don't say that it's hanging at all. The point, dear, is that they fly because they are "suspended" by those "ropes" that hold them up; they aren't suspended purely due to the fact that they are flying. If that were so, you should be able to dive off a skyscraper and become "suspended". Not that I recommend you try it. Yes. I even have an MRI image of it. No. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically a religious thing. Butter is obtained from milk by "churning" regardless of the Bible. The portions of the Bible that are religious (as opposed to scientific, historical, or pedagogical), are the ones that talk about supernatural beings and/or the accomplishments thereof. I do not -- and neither does any reasonable atheist -- discard the entire Bible as worthless. It is a priceless cultural artifact, no less priceless than the glyphs painted on Egyptian tombs (and even more than that, due to its contemporary effects.) It gives insight into the culture and history of a region and subsequently the world ranging from thousands of years in the past and up to this day. A circular argument much better than what I am offering? Now what, I wonder, could I be offering that could be worse than a circular argument? I reasong that science is (place adjective here) because it has many of the answers already, and is a sure route to more answers. I argue that evolution (the record) is true because of science, which pretty much already has all the answers. I argue that evolution (the body of theories explaining the record) is very promising as the explanation, and likely contains many of the components of the final answer. My fellow atheists argue that they, and me, know much more than some religious geek who imagines he's got all the answers. My best approach to truth is to question and investigate a mystery in order to arrive at answers. Your best approach to truth is to look up the word "truth" in the dictionary. You be the judge, competent as you are by your own admission. Actually, much of the human DNA's junk is indeed self-replicating segments of DNA. They continue to bloat the size of the genome to this day (albeit undetectably so, as far as phenotype is concerned.) Much of the rest of the junk are broken duplicates of existing genes or of viral or bacterial genes. Several human chromosomes have been shown to have formed by a duplication of an entire chromosome (that's more than 5% of present genome in one shot.) Let's conduct a very simple calculation. Your typical gene is 1000 base-pairs long (actually, longer than that on average, but we'll ignore that.) If you duplicate one of the genes once every, oh say 1,000 years -- how many new base pairs would you have added in 4 billion years? Let's see here: 4,000,000 * 1000 = 4,000,000,000. That's more than the modern human genome (bloated with useless junk as it is.) That's, of course, without ever duplicating entire chromosomes or entire sections of a chromosome, and also ignoring gene infusions from viruses and bacteria. Actually, they are demonstrating that. Modern bacteria readily swap genes across species; they even have a special mechanism for doing so. Modern amoebae have a genome larger than human. Though keep in mind that modern microorganisms are much more highly fine-tuned and optimized than we are -- they've had many orders more generations than us. It follows that in most cases, introducing a random new gene into a bacterium should actually hurt the bacterium's fitness more frequently than for organisms like humans. That, coming from the master of critical thinking as you have already emerged while I'm around. Yeah, I can imagine it: Tony (thinking silently): "Hmmm. Interesting, interesting. Why, this might even be right. Oh wait, what am I saying? I can't let myself be deceived by this anti-Christian propaganda. This is crap, crap, crap..." When did morality come into this? Churning milk->butter. Twisting nose->blood. Animosity->strife. None of that's about morality. Matter of fact, it's bleeding buttery obvious. But if you want to discuss morality, then wrong again. Morality is historically based on common sense and on emotions, not on religious edicts or doctrines. And neither is common sense, nor are emotions, subject to the calendar -- nor to the Bible. Of course these days one expects an educated person to have internally ratified, as it were, his/her own moral code based on all the past parental wisdom and all the present lessons that are available (in the forms of law, history, sociology, one's perceived place in the world, etc.) Well guess what, your textbooks weren't making claims that cannot be invalidated. That makes them scientific. Of course, you cannot textbook now or ever that is so outdated that nothing it says is true. The progress of science is incremental, and while the older books may fail to include the latest findings and contain invalidated theories, any reproducible experimental setups and outcomes they do contain still continue to apply. The parts of the Bible that did attempt to express the worldly wisdom of the day are also subject to invalidation. For example, the creation accounts come to mind. Another example are the various descriptions and references to astronomical, atmospheric or geological phenomena and facts. On the other hand, the parts of the Bible that are making prima facie unverifiable, undisprovable claims about the supernatural of course cannot be validated or invalidated by definition. That makes them vacant of any substance. Their main worth is in terms of insight into the historical effects of this religion on the world's societies and civilizations. Their secondary worth is in terms of insight into the human psyche, which is merely complementary to the insight offered by all the other religions. The difference between the two being...? You will tolerate any falsehood, any scam, any wool over your eyes, in fact, anything at all, as long as it appears real enough to fool you. Of course in your case the threshold of gullibility is waaaay lower. But as long as you keep struggling with yourself to keep that threshold where it is, you should have no problem remaining delusional. Ok, I'll add the last part: "including our own." (Though it's pretty much implicit when I say "all beliefs".) You did mention reading a book as one of your examples of "directed thought". I think you just shot down your own example. Spoken like someone who thinks that Christianity is the real impartial starting point. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Christianity is by definition a set of beliefs -- so you can't base your view on it to the exclusion of all other views and still claim to be impartial. Which, incidentally, is another reason behind the separation between church and state. It helps the judicial branch stay unbiased (though of course it can't in itself guarantee impartiality.) Spoken like someone who assumes his conclusion of a Christian God as his premise. What conclusions? That any claim, which cannot be confirmed or disproven, is most likely confabulated bunk? Yeah, I'll stand by that as my premise (though certainly an a priori assumption.) It is indeed the only way to remain sane. Or perhaps you mean my conclusion that every single religious metaphysical theory in the world is entirely too childish and anthropomorphic to even approach reality (which is certainly not anthropomorphic)? Yes, I'll stand by that one as well -- though it's not a prior assumption but indeed a conclusion following some analysis. Or maybe you are talking about the conclusion that "explaining" the universe and humanity and the self by postulating yet another higher "self" of a different "humanity" within an encompassing "universe" as the prime cause and source of everything is plain blithering ludicrous since it explains nothing at all? Yes, I'll accept that -- but it is not a prior assumption but indeed a conclusion following some analysis. Or are you questioning my unwillingness to close my eyes to demonstrable claims and facts just so that I could coerce myself into joining one of the world's religions? Well, I already did say that I cherish my sanity. Sorry bud, but it is you who is "heavily filtering". Take off your religious blindfold. I have indeed entertained that belief. I found it ridiculous. I do not entertain it much any longer, since I find it even more ridiculous now. Then you should try "a few loops of that" on the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. Or the ancient Innuits. Or pick your favorite delusion. Or is there something wrong with your logic (as quoted above)? I know what it is, but I want to give you a chance to figure it out yourself. What "that" belief? What you quoted is a strategy, not a belief. The corresponding belief would be that indeed of all prior beliefs that have not been substantiated the overwhelming majority (if not entirety) have turned out to be false (and I speak of personal life experience as a child, even before one learns of history.) It is not so much a belief as a conclusion -- and a very well-grounded in reality one at that (even before one entertains the mathematical notions of sets and probabilities.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME! *Originally posted by Bambi Originally posted by tiassa As well as the notion of whether thought is independent of religion.* You've both established beyond a doubt that thought is definitely independent of intelligence. *That's swell. So, you call both the physical evidence and the theoretical basis of evolution crap even while at the same time refusing to explain yourself. * OK, here's my explanation. I think. I think that a grown person who believes that the entire universe and everything in it just popped out of nowhere all by itself is nuts. The theoretical basis of evolution is that everything just popped out of nowhere by itself. The physical evidence for evolution is non-existent. There is physical evidence, and that evidence is the same as what evos claim supports evolution, but doesn't, and actually supports something else. *Yes, just like you are a moron, but just not a "true" moron. Ahh, the fun we can have with dictionaries...* Clever sidetrack, but fails to address the species issue. *I'll drop you a big fat hint though. Since we were discussing taxonomy (within the context of evolution), you might care to stick to the definition prescribed by taxonomy. * Given that evolution is nothing, the context is, therefore, nothing. That's the problem with evolution, taxonomy "within the context of evolution" is a meaningless concept, even if you think evolution has great meaning. *Life (other that intelligent life, obviously) cannot and does not plan ahead for future disasters; evolution is not purposeful.* If life evolved, than there is no such thing as intelligent life. I realize that you are trying very hard to prove the existence of evolution by proving the absence of intelligent life, but your intelligence gives it away. *It seems in your lingo, "true scotsman" is synonymous with "correctness". * The term "true Scotsman" refers to a type of fallacious argument. It goes something like this... Rob is not a Scotsman. Sure he is, he was born in Scotland. But he's not a "true" Scotsman, because a "true" Scotsman doesn't put sugar on his haggis, and Rob puts sugar on his haggis. *Since the Earth is not truly hanging, then either you say that it is hanging metaphorically speaking, or you don't say that it's hanging at all.* Ah, but what is "true" hanging? *The point, dear, is that they fly because they are "suspended" by those "ropes" that hold them up; they aren't suspended purely due to the fact that they are flying. If that were so, you should be able to dive off a skyscraper and become "suspended". Not that I recommend you try it.* Here's what you're arguing against: "suspended objects don't fly around at x kilometers per second. " *Yes. I even have an MRI image of it.* Aah, but is it a "true" MRI image? *Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically a religious thing.* Aaah, so it isn't "truly" in the Bible? *I do not -- and neither does any reasonable atheist -- discard the entire Bible as worthless.* So, you're a "true" reasonable atheist and the others aren't? I'm referring to the "true" thing simply because your arguments in large part are based on the "true" definitions of words as you see them. *A circular argument much better than what I am offering? Now what, I wonder, could I be offering that could be worse than a circular argument?* An endless one. Evolution quite literally has no beginning and no end, and no hope. Besides, you provided the circular argument, too. A circular argument is only invalid if it is "truly" circular. If a truth is argued in a circular fashion, the truth still remains true, and only the method of argument is faulty. *I reasong that science is (place adjective here) because it has many of the answers already, and is a sure route to more answers.* Sounds neat, but you don't actually have any answers. You have a lot of questions for which you receive something which engenders more questions, ad infinitum. *I argue that evolution (the record) is true because of science, which pretty much already has all the answers.* Again, you don't actually have any answers. *I argue that evolution (the body of theories explaining the record) is very promising as the explanation, and likely contains many of the components of the final answer.* Here's where that meta-thought comes in handy. For the sake of argument, simply assume that the theory of evolution is completely proven in principle. Did you do that? Now. So what? What is the benefit to mankind, or more specifically, you? *My fellow atheists argue that they, and me, know much more than some religious geek who imagines he's got all the answers.* Cris, and other agnostic-atheists, actually say that they know nothing. They also say that people such as myself also know nothing. The point of the argument appears to be that they will know something sooner than I will because they have science and logic and I have "nothing." *My best approach to truth is to question and investigate a mystery in order to arrive at answers.* That sounds good, but what if you pick the wrong mystery? *Your best approach to truth is to look up the word "truth" in the dictionary.* I only do the dictionary lookup thing when you, or someone else, start to lose track of what words mean and start making up your own definitions of words. The truth for me is that which is true and is no lie. *Several human chromosomes have been shown to have formed by a duplication of an entire chromosome (that's more than 5% of present genome in one shot.)* That "have been shown" phrase is the most overused, and least truthful, phrase in use in science today. Nothing of the sort has "been shown." Somebody noticed something, and began to speculate, or began to speculate and then saw something. A paper was written outlining the steps taken. That's all. To have "shown" something like that one would have to produce human DNA without that duplicated section from the appropriate time period, along with the same DNA recorded over time as it duplicates the section and following that to the present day. If that hasn't been done, it is pure speculation, oh excuse me, "scientifically acceptable theory." *Let's conduct a very simple calculation. Your typical gene is 1000 base-pairs long (actually, longer than that on average, but we'll ignore that.) If you duplicate one of the genes once every, oh say 1,000 years -- how many new base pairs would you have added in 4 billion years? Let's see here: 4,000,000 * 1000 = 4,000,000,000.* Of course, a person would have to start with zero. The first base pair is the hardest to explain. Then to get from zero to 3,000,000 ,000 in 5 billion years, one would have to average one new base pair every 18 months or so for the entire time. You just plain flat-out don't get to start out with 1000 base pairs. You get to start out with zero, just like your pet theory says. *Actually, they are demonstrating that.* Well, if they are, then that particular process plays no part in evolution, because those bacteria aren't evolving. *Though keep in mind that modern microorganisms are much more highly fine-tuned and optimized than we are -- they've had many orders more generations than us. It follows that in most cases, introducing a random new gene into a bacterium should actually hurt the bacterium's fitness more frequently than for organisms like humans.* It doesn't follow because of the "fine-tuning" and "optimization." If they have "evolved," then they would have experienced the stress of introducing random genes quite often and should have adapted to that by now. *That, coming from the master of critical thinking as you have already emerged while I'm around. Yeah, I can imagine it: Tony (thinking silently): "Hmmm. Interesting, interesting. Why, this might even be right. Oh wait, what am I saying? I can't let myself be deceived by this anti-Christian propaganda. This is crap, crap, crap..."* You don't have to tell me it's crap, I already know. As for the "rightness" of collected data, I don't think I've ever called collected data incorrect. So your imagined scenario is incorrect. What actually happens is: "Hmmm. Interesting, interesting. Why does the guy come up with such a far-fetched conclusion for such obvious stuff?" *When did morality come into this?* Here's what you said: "the Bible was wisdom of the day in my book. Some of it contained valuable insights, and yet in retrospect..." You take exception to the concept of morality. Am I to understand that wisdom and insight are completely unconnected with morality, to you? *Churning milk->butter. Twisting nose->blood. Animosity->strife. None of that's about morality. Matter of fact, it's bleeding buttery obvious.* Obvious, as is everything else in the Bible. That's why the Bible is written the way it is. Let's start with the obviously obvious and proceed to the more obvious yet. You're working with a blinded mind, so stuff that is obvious doesn't appear obvious unless it is really, really obvious. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV). *Morality is historically based on common sense and on emotions, not on religious edicts or doctrines.* It's the other way around. You have certain emotions because of morality, which comes from God. *Of course these days one expects an educated person to have internally ratified, as it were, his/her own moral code based on all the past parental wisdom and all the present lessons that are available (in the forms of law, history, sociology, one's perceived place in the world, etc.)* While I can't imagine you actually bothering to do all that, that would be a major source of today's problems. *Well guess what, your textbooks weren't making claims that cannot be invalidated. That makes them scientific.* I wouldn't argue against that. I agree wholeheartedly that what makes something scientific is the presence of claims that are easily invalidated. *Of course, you cannot textbook now or ever that is so outdated that nothing it says is true.* Some older books fall very close to making you a liar. *The progress of science is incremental, and while the older books may fail to include the latest findings and contain invalidated theories, any reproducible experimental setups and outcomes they do contain still continue to apply.* That, of course, isn't where the problem lies. The problem is when older books state the exact opposite of what today's books say. Further, the supporters of those books said the same things in their day as you're saying now. That is what makes the whole thing so suspect. *The parts of the Bible that did attempt to express the worldly wisdom of the day are also subject to invalidation. For example, the creation accounts come to mind. Another example are the various descriptions and references to astronomical, atmospheric or geological phenomena and facts.* Antibiblical scientists have a long way to go before they are anywhere near invalidating anything in the Bible. *On the other hand, the parts of the Bible that are making prima facie unverifiable, undisprovable claims about the supernatural of course cannot be validated or invalidated by definition.* Unverifiable by you does not mean unverifiable. *The difference between the two being...?* You reject huge areas of knowledge for no reason other than it doesn't agree with what some teacher told you years ago. *You will tolerate any falsehood, any scam, any wool over your eyes, in fact, anything at all, as long as it appears real enough to fool you.* Ditto, again. Your science teachers fooled you, and you never thought to question anything they said. In fact, even though they taught you to question everything, they slipped the concept of not questioning them right by you. *Of course in your case the threshold of gullibility is waaaay lower. But as long as you keep struggling with yourself to keep that threshold where it is, you should have no problem remaining delusional.* Of course in your case the threshold of gullibility is waaaay lower. But as long as you keep struggling with yourself to keep that threshold where it is, you should have no problem remaining delusional. *Ok, I'll add the last part: "including our own." (Though it's pretty much implicit when I say "all beliefs".)* Implicit, in theory, but not in practice. Not one atheist I have met has ever questioned their own most cherished beliefs. *You did mention reading a book as one of your examples of "directed thought". I think you just shot down your own example.* I mentioned reading a book, and the way you read it, as an example of undirected thought, thus my example stands. *Spoken like someone who thinks that Christianity is the real impartial starting point. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Christianity is by definition a set of beliefs -- so you can't base your view on it to the exclusion of all other views and still claim to be impartial.* While I do think that Christianity is the partial starting point, I don't claim to be impartial. You, do claim to be impartial, in theory, at least, but you cannot countenance Christianity, therefore you are neither impartial nor scientific. *Spoken like someone who assumes his conclusion of a Christian God as his premise.* It does save time. Of course, I don't and didn't actually do that. I started out the same as you, atheist to the core. *What conclusions?* That you see the world. *It is indeed the only way to remain sane.* Actually, you guarantee that you are deluded. Since you reject a claim which stipulates its own proof, you also reject the proof, hence, you are deluded. *...plain blithering ludicrous since it explains nothing at all? * To be replaced by a theory which is even worse since it explains nothing, engenders more questions with no answers in sight, yet convinces its faithful that they have hold of the truth. *I already did say that I cherish my sanity.* Why then, are you doing everything in your power to lose it? *Or is there something wrong with your logic (as quoted above)? I know what it is, but I want to give you a chance to figure it out yourself.* I don't think you do. *What you quoted is a strategy, not a belief.* What? You'd have to believe that it is a valid strategy. * the overwhelming majority (if not entirety) have turned out to be false (and I speak of personal life experience as a child, even before one learns of history.) It is not so much a belief as a conclusion* Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny?
Cool! That's cool, Tony1. Please demonstrate how you came to that conclusion, as we're eager to learn. Or is that just one of those things you throw into the mix because you have no actual response? Thought so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Cool! *Originally posted by tiassa Please demonstrate how you came to that conclusion, as we're eager to learn.* Glad to be of help. Step 1. Read your posts. Step 2. Conclude that whatever you do that passes for thinking is independent of intelligence.
Oversight? There is a definite lack of any description of methodology in your process. I don't think that lack is an oversight on your part, either. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Oversight? *Originally posted by tiassa There is a definite lack of any description of methodology in your process.* The method is a simple 2-step process as described earlier. Step 2 does take into consideration the repetition of information from demonic sources.
Ah, it's spiteful bigotry that makes you think that way, Tony1 .... So it's entirely dependent upon your superstitions. Thank you for clearing that up. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
